TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0vsSOC 2

See exactly how NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls map to SOC 2. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

28
Controls Mapped
78
Gaps Found
10%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 maps to SOC 2 with 10% coverage across 11 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 106 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls identifies 95 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in GV - Govern.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 106 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 28 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

DE - Detect(2 mappings)

NIST-CSF-DE.AE-08Incidents are declared when adverse events meet defined criteria2 targets
→SOC2-CC4.2COSO principle 17: Evaluates and communicates deficiencies in a timely manner
→SOC2-CC7.4Responds to identified security incidents through defined procedures

ID - Identify(2 mappings)

NIST-CSF-ID.IM-04Incident response plans and other cybersecurity plans are established and maintained2 targets
→SOC2-CC7.4Responds to identified security incidents through defined procedures
→SOC2-CC7.5Identifies the root cause of security incidents

PR - Protect(14 mappings)

NIST-CSF-PR.AA-05Access permissions, entitlements, and authorizations are defined and managed4 targets
→SOC2-CC4.2COSO principle 17: Evaluates and communicates deficiencies in a timely manner
→SOC2-CC6.2Prior to granting access, registration and authorization processes are established
→SOC2-CC6.3Role-based access and least privilege are enforced
→SOC2-CC7.4Responds to identified security incidents through defined procedures
NIST-CSF-PR.AA-06Physical access to assets is managed, monitored, and enforced
→SOC2-CC6.1Logical and physical access security for information and assets
NIST-CSF-PR.DS-10The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-in-use are protected3 targets
→SOC2-A1.1Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments
→SOC2-A1.2Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability
→SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-03Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and adverse situations3 targets
→SOC2-A1.1Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments
→SOC2-A1.2Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability
→SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures
NIST-CSF-PR.IR-04Adequate resource capacity to ensure availability is maintained3 targets
→SOC2-A1.1Maintains capacity to meet availability commitments
→SOC2-A1.2Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability
→SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures

RC - Recover(2 mappings)

NIST-CSF-RC.RP-01The recovery portion of the incident response plan is executed2 targets
→SOC2-A1.2Environmental protections, data backups, and recovery infrastructure support availability
→SOC2-A1.3Recovery plan procedures support system recovery from failures

+8 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 718 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever — no credit card required

Related Comparisons

Other NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 comparisons

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Belgium CyberFundamentals32 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ASIC Cyber Resilience Good Practices32 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs ASEAN Data Management Framework25 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security22 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Azure Security Benchmark22 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs Australian Energy Sector Cyber Security Framework (AESCSF)19 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance for the Water Sector (American Water Works Association)19 mappingsNIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements19 mappings

Other SOC 2 comparisons

AICPA SOC 3 vs SOC 231 mappingsC5 (Germany) vs SOC 222 mappingsSSAE 18 - Attestation Standards (SOC Reporting) vs SOC 213 mappingsAzure Security Benchmark vs SOC 211 mappingsISO/IEC 27400:2022 vs SOC 29 mappingsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) vs SOC 28 mappingsISO/IEC 38500:2024 - Governance of IT vs SOC 28 mappingsCFTC System Safeguards (17 CFR 37, 38, 39, 49) vs SOC 28 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 718 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • ✓ Unlimited full-text search
  • ✓ Framework self-assessment
  • ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and SOC 2?

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls across its framework, while SOC 2 covers 54 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 11 overlapping controls (10% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in GV - Govern, where 28 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct SOC 2 equivalent.

How many controls map between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and SOC 2?

Of 106 total NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls, 11 map directly to SOC 2 controls — representing 10% coverage. The remaining 95 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 to SOC 2?

95 NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 controls have no direct equivalent in SOC 2. The highest concentration of gaps is in GV - Govern with 28 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.

Which control domains have the most gaps between NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and SOC 2?

The domain with the highest gap count is GV - Govern (28 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.